The CANAL AUTHORITY OF the STATE OF FLORIDA, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
Howard H. CALLAWAY, Secretary of the Army, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
The CROSS-FLORIDA CANAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff,
v.
Howard H. CALLAWAY, Secretary of the Army, et al., Defendants.
Eleanor H. MILLER et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
Avery S. FULLERTON et al., Defendants-Appellees.
J. G. PERKO, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
The CANAL AUTHORITY OF the STATE OF FLORIDA, etc., et al., Defendants-Appellees.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
May 2, 1975.
Rehearing Denied June 2, 1975.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Alan B. Fields, Jr., Palatka, Fla., for Eleanor H. Miller, and others.
William L. Eagan, Orlando, Fla., for J. G. Perko.
A. W. Nichols, III, Palatka, Fla., for Eleanor H. Miller.
Edward Lee Rogers, Gen. Counsel, Environmental Defense Fund, East Setauket, N. Y., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Stuart B. Schoenburth, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for Callaway, and others.
John H. Gullett, Washington, D. C., Willard Ayers, Ocala, Fla., for Canal Authority, etc., and others.
Ralph E. Elliott, Jr., Allan P. Clark, Jacksonville, Fla., for Canal Authority.
John L. Briggs, U.S. Atty., John D. Roberts, Asst. U.S. Atty., Jacksonville, Fla., for Howard Callaway.
William L. Durden, Jacksonville, Fla., for Jacksonville Area Chamber of Commerce.
David U. Tumin, Asst. Counsel, Daniel U. Livermore, Jr., Jacksonville, Fla., for Jacksonville Port Authority.
Tracy Danese, Jacksonville, Fla., for Cross-Fla. Canal Association.
Jacques B. Gelin, Wallace Johnson, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., for all Federal defendants.
Edmund B. Clark, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., Harry M. Mack, Cincinnati, Ohio, Gary B. Randall, Dept. of Justice, T. Neal Combs, Washington, D. C., William Lee Allen, Asst. Counsel, Harry L. Shorstein, Jacksonville, Fla., Jon T. Brown, Washington, D. C., for Environmental Defense Fund, and others.
Before TUTTLE, GODBOLD and MORGAN, Circuit Judges.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
PER CURIAM:
The judgment is affirmed.
More than a year has passed since final judgment was entered in this case, and in light of statements during oral argument by counsel for the several contesting parties in this protracted litigation that circumstances with respect to the operation of the "Rodman Pool" have changed, we are of the view that although the judgment denying an injunction against lowering the level of the pool should be affirmed, the case should...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.
